tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/feedback-32419/articlesFeedback – The Conversation2018-04-17T10:43:11Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/935322018-04-17T10:43:11Z2018-04-17T10:43:11ZChildren are natural optimists – which comes with psychological pros and cons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214511/original/file-20180412-577-zq8tds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=283%2C245%2C4353%2C3157&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Little kids have a tendency to look on the bright side.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/little-boy-enjoying-rain-dressed-rainbow-142706665">Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You might hesitate to make a character judgment about someone based on a first encounter. Most adults would probably want to see how a stranger acts in several different circumstances, to decide whether someone new is nice, mean or trustworthy.</p>
<p>Young children are strikingly less cautious when making character judgments. They often show a positivity bias: a tendency to focus on positive actions or selectively process information that promotes positive judgments about the self, others, or even animals and objects. </p>
<p>Why does it matter if children see the world through rose-colored glasses? Children who are overly optimistic may unwittingly find themselves in unsafe situations, or they may be unable or unwilling to learn from constructive feedback. And in an era of “fake news” and myriad informational sources, it’s more important than ever to raise strong critical thinkers who will grow into adults who make informed life decisions. Psychologists <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Gwes7ewAAAAJ&amp;hl=en&amp;oi=ao">like me</a> investigate this optimism that seems to emerge very early in life to figure out more about how it works – and how and why it eventually decreases over time. </p>
<h2>Smart little optimists</h2>
<p>In many ways, children are sophisticated thinkers. In early childhood, they carefully gather data from their environment to construct theories about the world. For example, children understand that animate objects, such as animals, operate very differently from inanimate objects, such as chairs. Even preschoolers can tell the difference <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.002">between experts and non-experts</a>, and they understand that different kinds of experts <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00458">know different things</a> – like how doctors know how human bodies work and mechanics know how cars work. Children even track people’s records of accuracy to decide <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01778.x">whether they can be trusted</a> as learning sources for things like the names of unknown objects.</p>
<p>This level of skepticism is impressive, but it is sorely lacking when children are asked to make evaluative rather than neutral judgments. Here, children show clear evidence of a positivity bias.</p>
<p>For example, my colleagues and I have shown that 3- to 6-year-olds only need to see one positive behavior to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.500">judge a story character as nice</a>, but several negative behaviors to judge a character as mean. I’ve also found that children <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.10.008">reject negative trait descriptions</a> about strangers (such as “mean”) from credible judges of character, but readily accept positive trait descriptions (like “nice”).</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214326/original/file-20180411-549-pb92fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214326/original/file-20180411-549-pb92fa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Looks friendly, but actually dangerous.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/trubble_pics/5610661873">Trubble</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whereas children use information about expertise effectively in non-evaluative domains – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01618.x">like when learning about dog breeds</a> – they are reluctant to trust experts who make negative evaluations. For example, my lab found that 6- and 7-year-olds trusted positive descriptions of an unfamiliar animal (such as “friendly”) by a zookeeper, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12156">disregarded negative descriptions</a> (like “dangerous”). Instead they trusted a non-expert who gave positive descriptions.</p>
<p>In our other research, children <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12205">mistrusted an expert’s negative assessment</a> of artwork and instead trusted a group of laypeople who judged it positively. And preschoolers tend to evaluate their own performance on problem solving and on drawing positively even after being <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12941">told that they were outperformed</a> by a peer.</p>
<p>Altogether, research reveals that the positivity bias is present as early as 3 years of age, peaks in middle childhood, and weakens only in late childhood.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214329/original/file-20180411-566-71gh2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214329/original/file-20180411-566-71gh2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Everything’s new, everything’s great.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/GEJxI_QRPwM">Karl Fredrickson/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why do we start life with rose-colored glasses?</h2>
<p>Psychologists don’t know for sure why kids are so optimistic. It’s likely due in part to the positive social experiences that most children are lucky enough to have early in life. </p>
<p>With age, children are exposed to harsher realities. They begin to see differences in performance among people, including their peers, and this gives them a sense of where they stand in relation to others. They eventually receive evaluative feedback from their teachers and start to experience a greater variety of negative relational experiences, like bullying.</p>
<p>Even so, children often remain stubbornly optimistic despite contrary evidence. There may be different forces at play here: Because positivity is so ingrained in children’s minds, they may struggle to pay attention to and integrate contradictory evidence into their working theories about people. American children are also taught not to say mean things about others and may question the intentions of well-meaning people that speak hard truths. This may be the reason that children <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12059">prioritize benevolence over expertise</a> when learning new information.</p>
<p>The spirit in which negative information is offered can influence whether it’s able to break through a child’s positivity bias. In one study in my lab, we presented <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12205">negative feedback as improvement-focused</a> (“needs work” rather than “very bad”). In this case, children were more willing to accept negative evaluations and understood that the feedback was intended to be helpful. Youngsters are likely to benefit most from constructive feedback when they understand it’s meant to help them and also when parents and teachers emphasize the <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/44330/mindset-by-carol-s-dweck-phd/">process of learning rather than achievement</a>.</p>
<h2>Positive bias is tempered over time</h2>
<p>Should caregivers worry about the positivity bias? Overall, probably not.</p>
<p>One advantage is that it <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.1.46">opens children up</a> to try new things fearlessly and may contribute to learning. Children who approach others positively are more likely to <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130613">transition successfully through school</a> and have greater social success.</p>
<p>But in an era where people talk about “baby geniuses,” parents and educators need to be aware that children are not as sophisticated as they might appear, at least when it comes to evaluative judgments. It’s also important not to assume that older children necessarily have a better handle than younger children on making such judgments. Talking to kids about their beliefs may help them to think about what evidence supports them and to reflect on available information.</p>
<p>As for teaching children to accept negative feedback about themselves, a moderate approach is probably best. If children are reared in a loving environment where they’re taught over time to accept that they aren’t always the best, or that they sometimes need to do better, they may be better equipped to handle the inevitable hard knocks of life. We all become jaded adults soon enough.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93532/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Janet Boseovski has received funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.</span></em></p>Human beings seem to be born wearing rose-colored glasses. Psychologists are interested in how this bias toward the positive works in the very young – and how it fades over time.Janet J. Boseovski, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of North Carolina – GreensboroLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/867562017-11-27T19:09:50Z2017-11-27T19:09:50ZUniversities are failing their students through poor feedback practices<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193018/original/file-20171102-26478-1k773b5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For many students, the experience of teacher-led feedback is underwhelming or negative, and they are effectively left to their own devices.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Educators and students often struggle to learn from each other through the use of feedback. Our research into feedback practices has found that students and staff find feedback practices largely unsustainable, de-motivating and without opportunity for improvement. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.routledge.com/Feedback-in-Higher-and-Professional-Education-Understanding-it-and-doing/Boud-Molloy/p/book/9780415692298">Researchers generally describe</a> current feedback practices as lacking in detail, difficult to understand, ambiguous or simply unusable. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Graduate-Course-Experience_20151.pdf">2015 Graduate Course Experience</a> surveyed over 93,000 students within four months of their graduation. It reported that while close to three quarters of graduates felt the feedback they received was helpful, 16.3% could not decide if the feedback was helpful, while a further 9.7% found the feedback unhelpful. Clearly something is wrong when a quarter of our graduates indicate feedback is not working.</p>
<p>The Australian Government funded Feedback for Learning <a href="http://feedbackforlearning.org">project</a> surveyed 4,514 students and 406 staff across two universities. It revealed that while students are generally satisfied with their feedback, there are a number of cohorts, or practices, that need attention. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194120/original/file-20171110-29324-bs30i1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Feedback underpins students’ effective decision making, and is the basis for improving learning outcomes. Despite heavy financial investment by universities, student experience of feedback continues to be less than desirable, especially for already “at risk” students. Many academics operate with misconceptions about feedback that inadvertently add to the problem. If we are to improve we need to seek out best practices and gain a clearer vision of what feedback should be. </p>
<h2>Feedback is not ‘given to’ or ‘done to’ the learner</h2>
<p>In higher education, the concept of feedback is commonly misunderstood. For example, many academics and students assume that feedback is a one-way flow of information, which happens after assessment submission and is isolated from any other event. In addition, academics and students often feel that the role of feedback is merely to justify the grade. A further misunderstanding is that feedback is something that is done by academics and given to students. These beliefs are deeply held in academic culture. </p>
<p>In contrast, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Feedback-in-Higher-and-Professional-Education-Understanding-it-and-doing/Boud-Molloy/p/book/9780415692298">leading</a> <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075071003642449">researchers</a> <a href="https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-4/n3469-the-black-box-of-tertiary-assessment---john-hattiepdf.pdf">in the field</a> <a href="http://srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518">argue</a> that feedback is not a simple input. Instead, it is a process in which information about the quality of a student’s performance is engaged with by the student, and leads to a change in future work or learning strategies. Ultimately, academics need not be involved at all. </p>
<p>The shift from a teacher-centred perspective also provides a valuable opportunity to re-position the academic as just one actor within the feedback process. Indeed, feedback comments can be from, and instigated by, a variety of sources, including the evaluator, peers, and the learner. </p>
<h2>Feedback must have impact</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193015/original/file-20171102-26462-4vukrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Effective feedback practices require us to look for impact.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In contexts other than education, such as technology or biology, feedback is not an input but rather a process within a system. For example, if a blood vessel is damaged, platelets cling to the injured site and release chemicals that attract more platelets, eventually forming a blood clot. In this system, feedback regulates or optimises the output. Applying this metaphor to higher education, feedback can be usefully understood as a process within our complex teaching and learning system, rather than something that needs to be given to an actor in the system. </p>
<p>Under these circumstances, feedback can be identified by its regulating effect or impact. With this in mind, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Feedback-in-Higher-and-Professional-Education-Understanding-it-and-doing/Boud-Molloy/p/book/9780415692298">Boud and Molloy</a> argue that assessment feedback also should be seen to require some action or change to occur. </p>
<p>In other words, any information without effect is just information. Anything else is a waste of our time. </p>
<h2>Feedback should come before submission</h2>
<p>Feedback is a process in which information about the quality of a performance leads to a change in student work or learning strategies. Arguably, for the most useful impact, feedback should occur prior to the final submission of assessment. This means we are challenged with finding ways to elicit student performance early, and to facilitate feedback that then leads to improved submissions</p>
<p>In response to this, we might consider carefully designing a series of assessments that are connected by well-planned feedback. However, it is useful to note that the initial performance does not need to be the submission of assessment - it could be in the form of a variety of tasks that expose the student’s understanding or skills that may elicit feedback from a variety of sources. </p>
<h2>Feedback as teaching</h2>
<p>For many students, the experience of teacher-led feedback is underwhelming or negative, and they are effectively left to their own devices. In other words, many students learn despite us. However, feedback is arguably the most important form of interaction we can muster as teachers. Effective feedback requires us to seek out and judge the qualities of student performance, and to craft information and responses to have an impact. In addition, we need to find ways to monitor the impact of those interactions. </p>
<p>Most educators agree that feedback is potentially valuable. However, there is considerable push-back at the thought of greater investment in feedback practices, because it adds to an academic’s already heavy workload. This response is understandable if we persist with the assumptions that feedback is something we “give” to students as a secondary practice of, and costed in relation to, assessment grading.</p>
<p>A counter-argument is that we need to re-conceive of feedback in higher education to be a form of teaching just as important as lectures and tutorials. Feedback also doesn’t need to be teacher-centred. Peer, self and automated systems of feedback are well recognised as sustainable models.</p>
<h2>Feedback design</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193014/original/file-20171102-26483-1489qyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Feedback practices generally can’t be replicated across all contexts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While there is a growing body of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&amp;q=assessment+feedback&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1,5&amp;as_vis=1&amp;lookup=0">literature</a> surrounding feedback, there continues to be little agreement on the best approach. Certainly, there is no single feedback strategy or model that has been shown to work across all contexts. This is a significant problem for the higher education sector. </p>
<p>The way teachers, students and institutions interact vary in every instance. This includes policy, workload pressures, academic and student culture, and other broader socio-political issues that can significantly influence what might otherwise be regarded as effective feedback strategies. It is no wonder that simple strategies of feedback cannot be replicated successfully from one context to another. </p>
<p>This leaves us with a simple but frustrating truth – every educator needs to engage in feedback practices with an inquiring mind, prepared for repeated development of their own practices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Support for this research has been provided by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training.
The project team includes: Professor David Boud, Associate Professor Phill Dawson, Dr Michael Phillips, Professor Elizabeth Molloy, Dr Tracii Ryan and Ms Paige Mahoney.
More information can be found: <a href="http://feedbackforlearning.org">http://feedbackforlearning.org</a> </span></em></p>Despite heavy investment by universities, student experience of feedback higher education continues to be less than desirable, especially for at-risk students.Michael Henderson, Associate Professor in Educational Technologies, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/821822017-08-10T10:02:18Z2017-08-10T10:02:18ZJunior doctors have a tough job, but preparing them for when things go wrong can help<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181549/original/file-20170809-26064-1u4a1ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Challenging times for junior doctors.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thousands of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/02/open-letter-junior-doctor-nhs">newly qualified junior doctors</a> headed into UK NHS hospitals in their droves earlier this month, to begin their in-house training. </p>
<p>The first Wednesday in August is the day that marks the start of many doctors’ first steps on the career ladder. This has also been (rather unkindly) dubbed “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9441885/Thousands-of-juniors-start-jobs-in-NHS-killing-season.html">killing season</a>” due to the belief that having new junior doctors on the wards will increase medical mistakes and <a href="https://theconversation.com/happy-black-wednesday-every-doctors-nightmare-16106">mortality rates</a>. </p>
<p>This belief has persisted despite the evidence being nebulous at best, with <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007103">proponents</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21719058">opponents</a> of “Black Wednesday” (as it’s also called) slugging it out to prove one another wrong.</p>
<p>Of course, starting a new job is never easy, never mind one that puts people’s lives in your hands on a daily basis. For new doctors, the transition into the real world of clinical practice can be extremely rough, leaving many students feeling worthless, stressed, and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/medu.12797/full">fearful of engaging with real patients</a>. And if junior doctors aren’t properly supported through this transition they may, understandably, make errors in judgement to the detriment of their patients. </p>
<h2>Team effort</h2>
<p>For most junior doctors, though, after this initial turmoil, they eventually adjust to their new clinical roles. </p>
<p>But even though student doctors are taught how to perform skills manually – such as how to take blood – they aren’t always encouraged to develop the mental skills to help them deal with the uncertainty of becoming a doctor. This means that they are often too scared to ask for help or feedback which impacts negatively upon their performance.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/zd7eUnHeR4Y3Zk">My research</a> looks at how to help medical students survive and succeed as they go from classroom-based medicine to the messy clinical environment. And to try and make this transition as smooth as possible, my team developed a new solution designed to improve doctor’s confidence, tackle uncertainty, and develop independence. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181550/original/file-20170809-26073-qtea0d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fresh blood.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pexels</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The solution saw teachers training student doctors on dummies with fake blood, but rather than just getting them to do the task, as is normally the case, the students were encouraged to think about a “plan b” – for if the situation went awry.</p>
<p><a href="http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/2016/11000/Microanalytic_Assessment_of_Self_Regulated.19.aspx">Using a new system</a> we named Feedback+, students were asked how they would find the correct vein, and had to tell the teacher step by step how they would take the blood. The students were then encouraged to work out what they would do if anything went wrong. This meant that students could receive targeted feedback on their responses – honing both their physical and mental skills. This process was repeated using different skills.</p>
<p>This might sound like fairly basic stuff, but the fact of the matter is that for most junior doctors, they are only taught how to do set tasks, rather than how to think around them. On top of this, the current feedback they get is often pretty generic – meaning it isn’t tailored to their individual needs – and it doesn’t give them much say in the matter.</p>
<h2>Putting it to the test</h2>
<p>So to test whether this new system worked or not, we ran our own version of a clinical trial. We gave Feedback+ to one half of a student cohort for three months and tested the differences compared to the other half who got “business as usual” feedback. We measured the students’ independent learning skills and confidence levels multiple times over a year where they made their transition into hospitals. </p>
<p>Our findings show that students in the Feedback+ group reported higher levels of confidence and independent learning. And most of the trainers actually continued to use the new feedback approach even after the study had finished. Most importantly, though, the students who received Feedback+ were more able to plan, monitor, and judge how they were doing. This meant that they could come up with strategies for each day, check their progress, and work out how to perform better the next day.</p>
<p>My research also revealed how the supervisory team (senior doctors in charge) can have a huge impact in easing and supporting young medics into the clinical world. Ultimately, future doctors need to be adaptable in the face of an NHS that is increasingly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/the-guardian-view-on-changes-to-the-nhs-transformative-but-not-sustainable">complex and always evolving</a>, and it is clear how important a fully immersive and team based approach is in the training of new medical staff.</p>
<p>It is of course important that new doctors are able to learn from their mistakes and come back more resilient than ever. But the goal is not to mollycoddle them, rather this approach is about giving them the tools to manage on their own. And given the pressures the UK healthcare system is under right now, we need to prepare our students for instability. Not just for the sake of their own learning experience, but also for the sake of their patients.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Billy Bryan receives PhD Scholarship funding from The University of Sheffield Medical School. </span></em></p>Starting a new job is never easy, never mind one that puts people's lives in your hands on a daily basis.Billy Bryan, PhD researcher in Medical Education, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/803222017-07-04T03:26:59Z2017-07-04T03:26:59ZDoing away with the annual performance review? More feedback isn't necessarily better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176565/original/file-20170703-32591-sh20gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Businesses are considering making the change from a formal review to regular feedback. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/19410710528/in/photolist-vzfXYU-Tkp5HK-inNwmk-4ajt81-nHqLWZ-4BYB7z-2ZXhym-pCbEDE-6UTpWn-kUnmpK-iFYHo-GwLiE-r7YVTj-9q9qRG-Pj8hgo-7XLS4C-9o5Knq-9o5G9j-9o2EKZ-4srdeK-deDuYd-R6EiVL-UMP2SY-6zTybH-9PTQgQ-R6Ej65-4sk2s2-dQfQog-bpSodX-aud5Kh-2iRqPw-nKip3r-gSPac-9NZyt-8kmdBF-6E3E9-rqesnq-pbqEuo-5ysykT-rba4dj-71AWN8-4DxFqM-qKqH8Q-2oWuJ-iCmVKN-6bVyCs-3pHVNv-aPWRR-auaDG6-atJvUu">www.shutterstock.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For many employees the end of the financial year signals performance review time. The dreaded time of the year when they sit down with their supervisor and receive feedback on their performance over the previous 12 months.</p>
<p>In Australia and the US, <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-performance-management-revolution">businesses are reconsidering</a> this traditional approach to managing employee performance. Managers are worried the traditional approach is resource intensive, emphasises employee evaluation over development and tends to be retrospective. Feedback delivered after an event, can leave employees with an inaccurate assessment of their <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2670698">performance</a>.</p>
<p>Employees vary in their views on the frequency of feedback. One <a href="https://www.tinypulse.com/blog/difference-in-perception-between-generations">survey</a> found that baby boomers prefer less frequent feedback while millennials prefer more. Experienced workers know the job so see no value in feedback. Younger workers feel <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3052988/heres-what-millennials-want-from-their-performance-reviews">blindsided</a> by feedback that comes but once a year.</p>
<p>An alternative would be to <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-performance-management-revolution">drop traditional performance reviews</a> and implement regular feedback sessions with employees - maybe twice yearly, quarterly, monthly or even weekly.</p>
<p>One <a href="http://mrbartonmaths.com/resourcesnew/8.%20Research/Marking%20and%20Feedback/The%20effects%20of%20feedback%20interventions.pdf">study</a> found that feedback interventions (both positive and negative feedback) resulted in lower performance in over one third of cases examined. Another <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-02683-001">study</a> suggests that feedback without any consequences won’t be effective. This study reported that when feedback was used alone, it produced consistent improvements in performance in only 28% of the cases examined.</p>
<h2>Feedback, maybe just not constantly</h2>
<p>The argument for increasing the frequency of feedback is that it will provide more timely information that employees can use to learn and be more effective. This is particularly the case when it’s tied to events in the workplace. One <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/59f3/a052b4b5187a91cb9b8d0813e23f3dffbc03.pdf">study</a>
found that more frequent feedback improves employee learning and task performance. </p>
<p>A subsequent <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000513">study</a> also found that increasing the frequency of feedback had a positive effect on learning and performance but only up to a point.</p>
<p>It gets to a point where feedback can be overwhelming for employees, where its too much to process and respond to. This can actually reduce employee learning and performance. The challenge is to find the sweet spot between too much and too little feedback.</p>
<h2>The sweet spot</h2>
<p>The impact of more frequent feedback will depend partly on its content. Feedback can be positive or negative. Positive feedback makes employees feel <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11596809">pleasant and proud</a> as it is consistent with an employee’s <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02351.x/full">self-image</a>. </p>
<p>Some managers prefer to point out things that need to change in the way their employees work - that’s negative feedback. And it’s pretty risky for managers: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2731691">researchers report</a> that 98% of managers experienced some form of aggression by employees as a result of providing negative feedback. </p>
<p>So what’s also important in giving feedback is the way it’s delivered. Feedback needs to be clear and relevant. Both supervisors and subordinates need to feel comfortable asking for and giving feedback as part of a relationship of trust between <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.x/abstract">them</a>. </p>
<p>Feedback runs both ways! The quality of the feedback sessions also <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013164403258440">reflects a manager’s effectiveness</a>. When managers give feedback in a considerate manner, employees are more likely to feel that they are treated fairly by their <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25546265">supervisor</a>.</p>
<h2>The delivery</h2>
<p>To avoid the unpleasantness of the awkward annual chat, managers could try facilitating feedback <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0893318914524060">electronically</a>. This allows supervisors and employees to compose, edit, and process messages carefully, thereby improving the quality of the communication process. In fact, managers prefer sending negative feedback electronically, as it avoids the discomfort of communicating bad news <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00763.x/abstract">face to face</a>.</p>
<p>A new market has developed for apps and software that facilitate instant feedback from workplace <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2015/08/26/employee-feedback-is-the-killer-app-a-new-market-emerges/#56bbc2d85edf">colleagues</a>. For example, American multinational General Electric is piloting <a href="http://qz.com/428813/ge-performance-review-strategy-shift/">an app called PD@GE</a> to let people post notes of encouragement, advice or criticism under categories like “insight,” “consider” and “continue.”</p>
<p>Making the change to an informal performance management system based on regular feedback is going to be a challenge for Australian organisations. Currently <a href="http://www.afr.com/leadership/the-six-steps-to-getting-more-from-feedback-20140212-kbh6i#ixzz4lMSVPvpl">only 36%</a> of managers complete appraisals thoroughly and on time. Companies that have increased the frequency of feedback, do so after upping the training of their <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-performance-management-revolution">managers.</a> </p>
<p>Managers need to develop skills in identifying the causes of performance, distinguishing between systematic versus isolated performance issues, collecting and evaluating data and communicating with employees. It’s a big step up from the traditional ticking of a box agreeing to a statement about an employees’ performance.</p>
<p>Increasing the frequency of performance feedback is not a quick fix to the problems that are associated with performance reviews. Organisations need to think through the implications for training of managers and preferences of employees in order to make a successful change in their approach to performance management.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80322/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Brown receives funding from the ARC. </span></em></p>Finding the feedback balance is hard. Millennials are seeking more feedback while baby boomers tend to want to get on with the job.Michelle Brown, Professor, Human Resource Management, University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/716182017-06-08T19:26:10Z2017-06-08T19:26:10ZResearch in autism-friendly technology needs to improve to make a real difference for people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172367/original/file-20170606-16895-t9zft1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Developers need to consider how a person with autism could react to their technology.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Dubova</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>People on the autism spectrum can face challenges in dealing with a world they perceive differently to other people, no matter the severity of their condition.</p>
<p>Some people with autism gravitate towards technology for learning, play and communication. For many, technology in the form of augmented communication aids has helped to give them a voice. </p>
<p>We focus on the role technology plays in the lives of autistic people and their families. In particular, what are the benefits and problems, and where can we head in the future to get things right? </p>
<p>As part of that ongoing work, we collected user feedback by pulling data from millions of autism-related comments in public reviews of apps. We found many of the comments showed there were some clear benefits to people with autism, but there were also problems that could have been easily avoided. </p>
<h2>A hole in the evidence base</h2>
<p><a href="http://carlysvoice.com/home/aboutcarly/">Carly Fleischmann</a> was once considered a non-verbal, low-functioning autistic person. Now, with the aid of a digitally synthesised voice, she <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a34qMg0aF6w">interviews celebrities such as Channing Tatum</a> and has her own <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeKKQlMB1NeOLN31_CSJFRQ">online talk show</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GiYCL27msik?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Introducing Carly Fleischmann.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there is little evidence of <a href="http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319059808">the long-term benefits and complications</a> of using computers and mobile devices to assist, educate and entertain autistic learners.</p>
<p>This is despite <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01538283">positive responses to computer-based therapy first being published more than four decades ago</a>. In part, a dearth of evidence is due to research being expensive and impeded by ethical issues when working with people who are considered vulnerable. </p>
<p>Moreover, <a href="https://theconversation.com/autism-research-isnt-helping-people-live-with-daily-reality-25773">many families are becoming increasingly disillusioned with autism research</a>. Many feel that research outcomes have become distanced from practical strategies that help families manage the challenges that come with autism. </p>
<p>This is important, because <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-more-children-have-autism-now-than-before-4497">1 in 100 children</a> is being diagnosed on the autistic spectrum. Of the participants on the <a href="https://www.ndis.gov.au/medias/documents/hda/h8d/8800076922910/CDRC-Report-2016-17-Q2.pdf">National Disability Insurance Scheme</a> 29% are autistic, the second-largest disability group in the scheme. </p>
<p>From an economic perspective, there is an <a href="https://a4.org.au/node/1064">increasing annual cost</a> estimated to be A$5.8 billion that is borne by families, communities and government. </p>
<p>If technology can help people on the autism spectrum then we need to get it right to help with their learning and communication, and to help their families and carers. </p>
<h2>The current role of mobile technology</h2>
<p>Before we look to the future it is prudent to understand the present role of app-based technology. </p>
<p>We scoured the <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps">Android Play</a> and <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/genre/ios/id36?mt=8">Apple App</a> stores using a <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/54372/webcrawler">webcrawler</a> that scanned as many apps and their associated reviews as could be found.</p>
<p>The webcrawler applied an algorithm that kept reviews related to autism and discarded those that weren’t relevant, for example when autism was used as a derogatory term.</p>
<p>In the end, 56 million reviews were analysed from more than 2-million apps. About one in 7,500 reviews from Apple and one in 50,000 from Android were found to have useful information that told a story. Here’s <a href="https://appwhip.com/app/363843653/my-first-tangrams-for-ipad-a-wood-tangram-puzzle-game-for-kids-perfect-for-montessori-method">a typical example</a>, about the My First Tangrams puzzle app:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is a great app it has helped my son who has autism learn motor skills, matching shape recognition, motor planning, independence and makes him think by turning off the magnet.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From the extracted reviews, more than 85% referred to an app that was neither designed nor advertised for autistic people. We only found 57 apps specifically designed for autistic people that claimed to be evidence-based, but this was not verified. </p>
<h2>The most reported benefits</h2>
<p>The first question we looked at was: what were the main reported benefits?</p>
<p>Common problems in autism include language, education, behaviour, imagination, sleep, motor skills, attention, sensory, social, diary, hygiene, emotions, food and eye contact. So we counted how many times these themes appeared in the reviews. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DUCuN/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="437"></iframe>
<p>We found that language and education had the highest frequency of matches. Apple reviews were more prolific and reported benefits in all areas examined, whereas Android returned a smaller number of reviews across fewer areas.</p>
<p>Although anecdotal, this does give some credence that autistic people and their families are using technology for other than entertainment.</p>
<h2>Tailored for younger users</h2>
<p>It was common for the reviewers to report a particular age. Here’s <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/relax-jr-with-andrew-johnson/id657908353?mt=8">an example</a> from the Relax+ Jr. with Andrew Johnson meditation app:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>My 7 year old son is autistic and has major sleep problems however since using the original app his sleep has improved dramatically.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Age consistency was apparent between reviews from the Apple and Android stores, with the largest age groups targeted being between three and five year-olds. The reported ages ranged from one to 18, as shown in the figure below. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3UBiL/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="534"></iframe>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16322174">average age of autism diagnosis is typically about three years old</a> and therapy usually starts as soon as possible. It is not surprising that there is a demand for technology suitable for an age group that coincides with the commencement of intensive interventions.</p>
<h2>Are app developers autism friendly?</h2>
<p>We found a recurring theme of developers changing and updating features of the app that often caused distress to young people with autism, such as <a href="https://appsrankings.com/app/632012899/tiny-firefighters-police-firefighters-for-kids">this example</a> on the Tiny Firefighters: Police &amp; Firefighters for Kids app: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This was my son’s favorite game. My son is autistic. A seemingly small change like this is life-altering drama for him. Please change the icon, at least, so he thinks it’s a different game.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here’s <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/disney-junior-appisodes/id599083564?mt=8">another example</a> on the Disney Junior Appisodes of when things go wrong from an app behaving unexpectely:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bought this app for my 5 yr old with autism. He loves Disney. App always crashes so now all he does is scream in frustration when it repeatedly doesn’t work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As we said earlier, the majority of the apps we found being used by people were not specifically developed for people with autism. </p>
<p>But had these apps been developed with help from people involved with autism research, then the developers could be better advised on how to avoid causing any distress. </p>
<p>Perhaps we need a set of guidelines for all software developers to help them develop autism friendly apps?</p>
<h2>The future for technology and autism</h2>
<p>Autism diagnoses are increasing and showing no signs of curtailing, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-causes-autism-what-we-know-dont-know-and-suspect-53977">causes are still debated</a>. </p>
<p>Research shows people on the autism spectrum tend to spend significantly <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201612/autism-and-screen-time-special-brains-special-risks">more screen time than the typical person</a>. As such, they have the potential to rapidly develop skills and learning experiences from technology. </p>
<p>The use of any mobile technology must provide a positive role for people with autism. But there are still some serious unanswered questions as to how best technology should be designed and developed to mitigate overuse, or harm from poor design or deployment. </p>
<p>Are the skills and experiences that are obtained from using a particular app being transferred to the real world? Are people with autism becoming dependent on the virtual world while elements of interpersonal interaction are sacrificed? What are the negative effects of overuse and poor design of apps?</p>
<p>We believe technologies that offer safe, interactive and therapeutic environments will only come about from a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, software developers, people on the autism spectrum and their families. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the future does look brighter for a person diagnosed with autism and their families as <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tinycards-learn-with-fun-free-flashcards/id1109425556?mt=8">one reviewer remarked</a> on the Tinycards memory education app: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The last two days I’ve finally been having good interactions with my four year old daughter.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><em>The app reviews included in this study are anecdotal user testimonials collected from public information.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71618/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d&#39;une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n&#39;ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.</span></em></p>There are plenty of apps that people with autism can use for learning, play and communication. Not all are designed with autism in mind, so what can we learn from any online user feedback?David Ireland, Research Scientist at the Australian E-Health Research Centre, CSIRODana Bradford, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRODavid Silvera-Tawil, Research Scientist, CSIROLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/712232017-01-16T15:19:18Z2017-01-16T15:19:18ZHow plugging into well-connected colleagues can help research fly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152622/original/image-20170113-11191-hv7zq4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Getting input from well-connected academics and researchers is crucial to a paper&#39;s scientific impact.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Informal intellectual collaboration <a href="http://jfe.rochester.edu/jointed.pdf">is crucial</a> for good social science research. This includes interactions with colleagues to improve a paper before it is sent to a journal.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2877586">new research</a> explored the value of informal intellectual collaboration. It highlights the importance of social networks in academia. </p>
<p>What we uncovered suggests the scientific impact of a research paper increases with every additional commenter who provides feedback. This impact is measured by the number of citations over a paper’s lifespan. The same holds when we look at the probability of publishing a paper in top journals.</p>
<p>But here’s the true novelty of our paper: it found that the feedback of more central or connected people is more valuable than less central, less connected ones when it comes to impact. And no, it’s not as simple as just asking your most senior colleague for their input. Seniority isn’t what matters. It’s all about how well connected an academic or researcher is.</p>
<p>This is important information. Our results should encourage university management to actively encourage collaboration among scientists, across departments, and across universities – and to make networking and seeking feedback part of PhD training.</p>
<h2>Connectedness is key</h2>
<p>So how do you define “well connected” in this case?</p>
<p>A researcher is well connected in a social network because they are connected to other well-connected researchers. We used what might sound like a tautological idea in our research: the so-called <em>eigenvector</em> centrality, which posits that if you know important people you are probably important in that field, too. It is the <a href="http://www.math.cornell.edu/%7Emec/Winter2009/RalucaRemus/Lecture3/lecture3.html">same idea</a> that allows Google’s search algorithm to identify relevant websites.</p>
<p>But, as we’ve already pointed out, our findings weren’t about “importance”, or status. These eigenvector central academics are not necessarily the most well known or most senior. And they aren’t always affiliated to the most prestigious universities. Yet in the social network they occupy influential positions. It’s about connections. Think of them as opinion leaders.</p>
<p>Feedback from eigenvector central academics has a much larger impact on a paper’s publication success than feedback from isolated loners. Highly connected commenters may point authors to emerging <a href="http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00430">new topics</a> or the most rewarding avenues for future research. </p>
<p>To reach these conclusions, we built the first and most comprehensive view of the social network structure among financial economists. It connects authors and acknowledged commenters from published papers. This is a novel approach because it captures all those that have contributed to a paper, not only authors.</p>
<p>Our innovative approach was to use acknowledgements as a primary source of data. In financial economics, authors often acknowledge from which colleagues they have received helpful feedback. We collected more than 5,800 research papers from six major financial economics journals. About 90% of these acknowledge helpful input by colleagues.</p>
<p>After consolidation we create the network. Two researchers are connected when they have co-authored a paper or one acknowledges the other. This network connects about 7,500 researchers and indicates information flows between them. Then we computed the network positions and ranked individuals according to their eigenvector centrality. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152626/original/image-20170113-11183-1x3zl1k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152626/original/image-20170113-11183-1x3zl1k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A visualisation of the largest connected component of the network of intellectual collaboration in financial economics using publications from 2009 to 20011. Red links connect researchers when they have co-authored a paper, blue links indicate that one acknowledged the other, and purple links indicate the both happened. The darker the node the more important the researcher is in terms of eigenvector centrality.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Such an analysis helps uncover patterns and structures that remain hidden when looking at individual researchers only. </p>
<p>We then used a quasi-natural experiment – the assignment of discussants at top conferences – to show our main argument: getting feedback from a colleague increases the scientific impact of a paper more if the colleague is more eigenvector central in the social network of their profession.</p>
<p>On our <a href="http://www.central-places.net/index">website</a>, we have developed an interactive tool where financial economists can find themselves on our database.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2709107">companion paper</a> we explore the determinants of the most eigenvector central financial economists. That is, we contrasted their eigenvector centrality rank with their individual characteristics. We found that traditional author metrics such as citation counts or their number of published papers cannot explain which researchers are eigenvector central. </p>
<p>One part of the answer is certainly that citation counts have many <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/465870a.html">problems</a> and poorly capture true academic strength. Another one is that is generally difficult to identify the opinion leaders unless you know all the network.</p>
<h2>New insights in the sociology of economics</h2>
<p>Our analysis is not exhaustive and research is ongoing. But it is clear that understanding knowledge flows helps in understanding <a href="http://voxeu.org/article/nine-facts-about-top-journals-economics">productivity differentials</a> among scientists. </p>
<p>Hopefully these results will inspire university managers to actively encourage collaboration among scientists, across department and across universities. </p>
<p>Our results also support calls to measure scientific impact <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/04/20/scholarly-behaviour-evaluation-criteria-citations/">broader</a>, and not just based on citations. </p>
<p>Finally, our findings highlight the importance of sufficient travel funding for academics, given the crucial role of <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/08/16/the-last-great-unknown-the-impact-of-academic-conferences/">academic conferences</a> as a networking opportunity.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Authors’ note: This article is based on a <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/01/10/feedback-helps-increase-the-impact-of-academic-research-even-more-so-when-coming-from-well-connected-colleagues/">post</a> written for the London School of Economics’ blog.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The scientific impact of a research paper increases with every additional commenter who provides feedback – particularly if the comment came from a well-connected academic.Michael E. Rose, PhD Candidate in Economics, University of Cape TownCo-Pierre Georg, Senior Lecturer, African Institute for Financial Markets and Risk Management, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/686392016-12-20T01:33:09Z2016-12-20T01:33:09ZHow ancient wisdom can help managers give their employees better feedback<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150767/original/image-20161219-24310-gj8y4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Old books know best.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Old books via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Giving feedback is unquestionably one of the most challenging tasks for any leader, as it can be painful to both the giver and receiver. It is nonetheless invaluable: <a href="https://hbr.org/2014/01/your-employees-want-the-negative-feedback-you-hate-to-give">Research has shown</a> that employees recognize the importance of feedback – whether positive or negative – to their career development. </p>
<p>Many even welcome it, provided it’s given well. One <a href="https://hbr.org/2014/01/your-employees-want-the-negative-feedback-you-hate-to-give/">study</a> of nearly a thousand employees both in the U.S. and abroad found that 92 percent believed that negative feedback is effective at improving performance – “if delivered appropriately.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, most leaders are reluctant and uncomfortable providing negative feedback – and when they give it, they don’t follow the “appropriate” advice above. In a <a href="http://zengerfolkman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ZF-Feedback-The-Powerful-Paradox.pdf">study of 2,700 leaders</a>, researchers found that a majority tend to avoid giving negative feedback and 43 percent described doing so as a “stressful and difficult experience.” </p>
<p>There are a host of reasons why this may be the case, most of which can be boiled down to the notion that humans are wired to avoid pain. So how can managers become better at providing their employees with negative feedback that successfully highlights problems and how to resolve them?</p>
<p>My experience in coaching executives on giving meaningful and effective feedback reminds me of an ancient Sufi saying dating back to the 13th century.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Before you speak, let your words pass through these three gates: At the first gate, ask yourself, ‘Is it true?’ At the second gate, ask yourself, ‘Is it necessary?’ At the third gate, ask yourself, ‘Is it kind?’” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, as long as managers always ensure their feedback is unbiased, essential and civil, it’s almost certain to be effective and help an employee grow. And it’s a philosophy supported by existing research.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150768/original/image-20161219-24263-q9cxci.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Giving negative feedback can be an uncomfortable experience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office interaction via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Overcoming biases</h2>
<p>Researchers have consistently found that bias - conscious and unconscious - influences our views of others. Personal bias clouds our perceptions so profoundly that employee performance ratings often reveal more about the person conducting them than the person being rated. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.rc.usf.edu/%7Ejdorio/Performance%20App/Scullen,%20S.%20E.,%20Mount,%20M.%20K.,%20&amp;%20Goff,%20M.%20(2000).pdf">One of the most comprehensive studies</a> on the topic examined the performance ratings of 4,492 employees. It found that idiosyncratic bias – such as the tendency to rate based on an overall impression (halo error) or assign higher/lower ratings than warranted (leniency error) – accounted for 62 percent of the variance in the ratings, whereas actual performance accounted for only 21 percent. Simply stated: It’s more about the person giving the rating than the actual performance of the person being evaluated. </p>
<p>In another example, a <a href="http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/dcarpent/altruism.pdf">study</a> conducted at New York University found that men and women received different evaluations after demonstrating the same altruistic behavior, such as volunteering to help a co-worker who was in a bind even though the employee would end up being late for another co-worker’s party. </p>
<p>The employees were then given performance evaluations and reward recommendations – that is whether they should get salary increases, promotions, high-profile projects or bonus pay. Women were consistently evaluated more harshly than their male counterparts and were penalized to a greater degree if they were unwilling to help. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="http://gender.stanford.edu/people/caroline-simard">research has shown</a> managers are more likely to perceive women’s accomplishments as part of the team effort, while men’s were seen as individual efforts. </p>
<p>In these cases, actual performance is contaminated by the biases, emotions and idiosyncrasies of the person making the evaluation. By carefully considering personal biases that could affect their evaluation of an individual’s performance, managers can greatly enhance the feedback experience for an employee.</p>
<p><a href="http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/implicit-bias-2016.pdf">According to experts</a>, a key to curbing biases is to develop awareness and insight into them. The <a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/">Implicit Association Test</a>, for example, is one such tool to help uncover unconscious beliefs. Many organizations such as Google, Microsoft and Facebook have in fact developed training programs to help employees develop this insight. </p>
<h2>Too much information?</h2>
<p>As we all know, <a href="https://workplacetrends.com/the-global-workforce-leadership-survey/">feedback is built</a> directly into the corporate infrastructure – and that doesn’t include the unsolicited kind. </p>
<p>Is this abundance of feedback necessary? Not always, researchers say. <a href="http://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/Faculty/swaminaj/research/paper/NS.pdf">Studies conducted</a> at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of North Carolina concluded that the more feedback a participant received in a management simulation, the lower his or her subsequent level of performance.</p>
<p>Similarly, University of Michigan <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000513">researchers</a> challenged the more-is-better notion when it comes to feedback, finding that performance improves when feedback is given, but only up to a certain tipping point, after which, performance significantly decreases.</p>
<p>As a leader, it is important to pay attention to how often you are providing feedback, particularly negative feedback. Although you may be reluctant in delivering this type of feedback, when you do, it should be measured and rationed.</p>
<p>Additionally, the tainting factor of bias must be put in check as to its impact on feedback. Does your feedback reflect the requirements of the actual job or your personal preferences for how to do the job? Feedback in the latter category may be unnecessary and not helpful, as it is attached to a personal preference rather than what’s required for successful performance.</p>
<h2>It’s all in the delivery</h2>
<p>There is substantial evidence demonstrating the damaging impact of negative feedback on employee attitude, performance, goal commitment and satisfaction. If this is the case, then why would employees want negative feedback, as the research suggests? The answer lies in how feedback is delivered. </p>
<p>Employees are motivated to improve job performance when feedback is delivered in a constructive and considerate manner. A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Steelman/publication/242347571_Moderators_of_employee_reactions_to_negative_feedback/links/552673ed0cf21e126f9db274.pdf">study of 400 manufacturing employees</a> examined negative feedback on employee motivation to improve performance. They identified feedback delivery as a critical factor. Feedback delivery (aka interpersonal consideration), significantly affected whether an employee was motivated to improve his or her job performance. Employees were most motivated to improve when they received negative feedback that was constructive and respectful.</p>
<p>Along the same lines, a <a href="http://www.academia.edu/2871025/When_is_Criticism_Not_Constructive_The_Roles_of_Fairness_Perceptions_and_Attributions_in_Employee_Rejection_of_Critical_Supervisory_Feedback">study on workplace justice</a> examined how fairness affects the acceptance of negative feedback. Fairness in the study was defined as the “extent to which the manager showed respect and consideration for their subordinate.” The researchers found that criticism delivered with greater interpersonal fairness resulted in higher rates of feedback acceptance and invoked trust and satisfaction towards the supervisor.</p>
<p>As the old adage goes: it’s not what you say but how you say it. </p>
<h2>Sage advice</h2>
<p>Taken as a whole, the ancient wisdom still resonates.</p>
<p>Given that the point of feedback is to improve performance, research supports the components of this framework as providing a distinct advantage. Even if corporate America doesn’t uniformly value advice from the sages, it certainly recognizes their potential byproducts: productivity and increased revenue. </p>
<p>Honest, balanced and compassionate feedback has been shown to improve both.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Khatera Sahibzada does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many managers say they're uncomfortable giving negative feedback, yet employees tend to consider it helpful to improving importance. Research – and a 13th-century saying – offers some tips.Khatera Sahibzada, Adjunct Lecturer in Applied Psychology, University of Southern California – Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/632882016-10-21T13:01:11Z2016-10-21T13:01:11ZAnnual performance review looming? How to give and receive feedback<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142427/original/image-20161019-20308-1i1kd00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=422%2C305%2C5577%2C3287&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-500371147/stock-photo-mature-businesswoman-giving-presentation-using-flipchart-in-board-room.html?src=7VV0CE-HyfGwMUnTTjCZGA-4-0">bikeriderlondon/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Feedback is a daily occurrence. Workers get it constantly from their managers and colleagues, and how we <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2014/01/29/8-ways-negative-feedback-can-lead-to-greater-success-at-work/#acc821b32f9d">react to it</a> can have implications for <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481011030557">job performance</a> and career success. Staff at companies around the world will soon start the laborious process of annual performance reviews as their bosses seek to inspire, admonish, or more likely, explain away this year’s pay freeze. The trouble is, our reactions to feedback may not be what the manager intended, and may not be in our best interests either.</p>
<p>Understanding how we respond to feedback would help a boss who genuinely wants to influence staff behaviour. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12407">Our study</a> set out to shed light on this: is feedback satisfying or useful? Does it change our thinking or behaviour? And how can we give better feedback to others? </p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x">Past research</a> suggests that people respond better to “enhancing” or wholly positive feedback, rather than anything negative or critical. This is because we are striving for <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00633.x">self-enhancement</a> or positive information. Less is known about how people take “improving” feedback, where a negative or neutral starting point becomes more positive over time. Some findings <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00231.x">indicate that individuals</a> are eager for this kind of improvement information. Both these approaches – “enhancing” or “improving” – might have their benefits.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142425/original/image-20161019-20308-1nd133z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142425/original/image-20161019-20308-1nd133z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Aim higher.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/polandmfa/7836793264/in/photolist-cWvBBf-4HXDsi-9to2it-nyruGg-aRvnW-nUcZKU-81Ff4E-5yczXw-9NF4Lm-86dZN1-oQibSz-oC62bv-9YcpfH-iVVwux-dY25tK-oA3GYq-cngeRU-r2oWdA-6EGgAv-7iEQDg-boAHJy-6kgtCn-6kkBJN-6QyC8C-aLhgMR-9NF6R7-5t1v1B-9NF7g3-9NF8Y1-9NF66y-9NChKc-9NCiK8-a4Kz26-9NCjUp-dY7MN7-sri2YH-bBwF2H-9NF979-9NF3UW-9NCptM-9NFaFW-6km3QQ-9NF9Fo-aCkwmQ-6kkLr3-9NCnCM-9NF8Gw-dnb2BQ-nJQnY2-7W3dLH">Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Impact assessment</h2>
<p>Across our experiments, 212 participants completed a series of tests assessing academic and life skills, and were given one of these types of feedback. We examined the potential psychological consequences on things like self-esteem or optimistic beliefs about future performance. We also looked at behavioural outcomes like the effect on people’s persistence. This is crucial stuff for businesses, where feedback is often targeted towards both enhancement and improvement, and is <a href="https://www.investorsinpeople.com/resources/share-and-inspire/constructive-feedback">delivered on multiple occasions</a> to people who at least <a href="http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787973505.html">appear to want it</a>. </p>
<p>It turns out that the consistently positive message from the enhancing feedback made more of an impact both psychologically and behaviourally. People found it satisfying, and more satisfying and useful than the improving feedback. </p>
<p>Enhancing feedback also resulted in more optimistic beliefs about future performance on similar tests, higher levels of general satisfaction and self-esteem, and more willingness to persist on similar tests in the future.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142423/original/image-20161019-20330-k9niw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142423/original/image-20161019-20330-k9niw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mug’s game?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/28974995@N04/5187038544/in/photolist-8UmVR3-dZGU7A-hGxaXi-5G8WnZ-soPXJg-srbaRz-99X8VM-5mJmwP-9XRVNK-61GJhM-7N1Wsq-aBLMDj-df6w3C-c4Qki-4HLyZ4-53pYWj-dZBcqi-6aRrXn-5VCCvw-7BWFP-6aVFHe-8VY8Tf-GDkkU-cfu8BN-dZBCca-aa2Jh4-99Xbue-8s2hxQ-EWoTg-6aRshg-9a1gV5-ahNCFx-bCSsvF-f21K9-d9N9wa-noz52r-6aRrZt-85Zv4T-r5eLkH-AEJ1j-5rcLR-Pyp2R-qfnB6i-dZGU5h-iNbub-4bCwUf-tF7LB-ng5bV-rgWL8-99X9eg">Glen Wright/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some managers might baulk at that message. Do they really have to put a cheery gloss on every pronouncement? Not quite. That relentless positivity got less satisfying and useful over time, and in the longer term, the improving feedback, that starts more negative and ramps up the good news as it continues, was rated as more satisfying. The improving style of feedback also resulted in a stronger sense of self-improvement. </p>
<p>For bosses trying to get the best out of staff, the message is <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/giving-positive-feedback-2275335">pretty clear</a>. If you want quick results then go in to the performance review with a smile and a message of joyful hope. In the short term, enhancing feedback fuels a multitude of processes. It increases satisfaction, self-esteem, and optimism and makes people more focused on performing well in the future. It will likely give you more bang for your buck in a one-time assessment.</p>
<p>This will be a tempting route. Who doesn’t want a workshop or an office full of (even temporarily) upbeat staff? But there is potentially more to be gained from feedback that charts an upward trajectory and takes its time to bring employees to a positive conclusion.</p>
<h2>Taking it on the chin</h2>
<p>But what does this all mean for employees? How should they adjust their responses as their year’s work is being picked over? Well, staff should start by understanding why they are emotionally charged after receiving feedback. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142426/original/image-20161019-20305-e1vz4z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/142426/original/image-20161019-20305-e1vz4z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stay positive.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/eek/16295396/in/photolist-2rw47-dV2Fmy-bjQJTg-dUTTjS-buHHLP-eQAQ5d-facLhK-p85n8v-fJcxmJ-9nXmnw-6p8hBv-atvuC5-Er5aP-83BubD-bB1BU2-cbZ2tb-FH4RN-5og9wQ-9a6wbe-5YEUow-82Q5gC-4VVg6J-fNnMVw-4HVAF7-7fMDim-8bCH6f-4YHMiE-qiWeZ5-mtU7WV-9et2zw-6znrMG-5Zx1sC-9EM9dZ-8PtFsq-bopaKx-7yBPaL-cDzXaq-bvkgY5-5Zqwux-byaey4-9nGTj8-74mgna-7a6wKu-42S7Bf-7Bu9Dp-j3CQ6N-LiwiJ-8rERaM-buGi5i-7Hug2z">eek the cat/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Feedback clearly has an effect on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710778459">self-esteem</a>, and the emotions felt are reactions to an increase or decrease in that self-esteem. If your annual review is going badly, there are, fortunately, ways to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887">mitigate the potential threats</a>. One is to develop self-compassion – kind feelings towards the self. Many exercises exist to <a href="http://self-compassion.org/category/exercises/">develop self-compassion</a>; 21 minutes <a href="http://self-compassion.org/wp-content/uploads/meditations/affectionatebreathing.mp3">of Affectionate Breathing</a> might just do the trick.</p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly, employees should also <a href="https://hbr.org/2015/08/how-to-give-tough-feedback-that-helps-people-grow">develop a good rapport</a> with their managers. This isn’t only good advice for getting along in your career, it could help you separate the feelings from the behavioural reactions and understand the manager’s feedback intentions. That is, neutral or negative feedback may be delivered with the intention of helping an employee grow and develop over time. In fact, people are more likely to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410520637">accept negative feedback</a> if it comes from a credible source and is delivered in a considerate way. Unfortunately, not all of us will be that lucky.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was supported by Economic and Social Research Council grant RES-000-22-1834. </span></em></p>Here's how to make a happy workplace during year-end assessments.Michelle Luke, Reader in Organisational Behaviour, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.